Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Extreme Multilabel Text Classification (XMTC) is a text classification problem in which, (i) the output space is extremely large, (ii) each data point may have multiple positive labels, and (iii) the data follows a strongly imbalanced distribution. With applications in recommendation systems and automatic tagging of web-scale documents, the research on XMTC has been focused on improving prediction accuracy and dealing with imbalanced data. However, the robustness of deep learning based XMTC models against adversarial examples has been largely underexplored. In this paper, we investigate the behaviour of XMTC models under adversarial attacks. To this end, first, we define adversarial attacks in multilabel text classification problems. We categorize attacking multilabel text classifiers as (a) positive-to-negative, where the target positive label should fall out of top-k predicted labels, and (b) negative-to-positive, where the target negative label should be among the top-k predicted labels. Then, by experiments on APLC-XLNet and AttentionXML, we show that XMTC models are highly vulnerable to positive-to-negative attacks but more robust to negative-to-positive ones. Furthermore, our experiments show that the success rate of positive-to-negative adversarial attacks has an imbalanced distribution. More precisely, tail classes are highly vulnerable to adversarial attacks for which an attacker can generate adversarial samples with high similarity to the actual data-points. To overcome this problem, we explore the effect of rebalanced loss functions in XMTC where not only do they increase accuracy on tail classes, but they also improve the robustness of these classes against adversarial attacks. The code for our experiments is available at https://github.com/xmc-aalto/adv-xmtc .
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".